If she wants a picture of her kid she can pay the mall caricature artist $40 for one.

Whenever I see a grandparent take a photo of their grandson I usually barge in and say stuff like, "Hey Gramps! Why don't you just pull down his pants and suck him off, you sick old piece of baby-raping GARBAGE!"

I'm sure glad my preconceptions have been vindicated!

Speaker2Animals: Someone is in dire need of a cock punch. Several someones, in fact. Yeah, it's private property and you can make your own rules. Doesn't mean you're not an asshole for making stupid rules.

THIS

This is our society now - paranoid and filled with little hitlers.

What is the general rationale against picture taking? I don't buy the pedophile thing. My only guess is that they don't want you to take pictures of crumbling infrastructure or unsafe conditions (spills, whatever) so that in the event that you sue there's no evidence to support your claim.

That, or some strutting martinet on a ego-fueled power trip made up the rule so he would have something to intimidate shoppers with.

Did the author learn to write English from a foreign trade school?

These laws stop pedophiles the same way the gun laws keep guns out of criminal hands, drug laws keep drugs out of our country and campaign laws keep money out of politics.

Hector Remarkable: This is our society now - paranoid and filled with little hitlers.

TSA want to be thugs.

America..Land of the Fee.

Home of the Slaves.

Well we all know it's been proven; giving someone a badge is the main ingredient in instant asshole mix

I can think of a lot of reasons why a mall wouldn't want customers taking random pictures without permission. I'm not saying any of them are GOOD reasons, but when thinking of all the possible ways to NOT get sued, having a large public supply of random, out-of-context photography is a good way to reduce some legal problems.

Nobody cares if you're taking a picture of your own kid. That's not the type of thing they're trying to prevent. But off the top of my head, here are some things I can think of.....

- Pedophiles or other people taking candid pictures of other people (not always children) for sexually related purposes, upskirts, etc.
- The mall has any spaces rented by a government agency, and they have their own rules regarding photography which the mall is forced to adopt as well.
- prevent someone from doing unauthorized discovery for a lawsuit.
- prevent freelance bloggers from blogging about various real or imagined "problems" with the mall.
- protect the privacy of other shoppers. If someone complains some other shopper is taking pictures of them, its' easier to stop if there's a policy against photography.
- as some other posters have speculated, mall merchandise has a tendency to be greatly marked up and there can be a wide variance in prices between different malls or even different stores, and the stores in question probably don't want you documenting this fact if they can help it. They'd probably be equally annoyed if you walk in there with a clipboard and a long list of products and prices as well.
- if an incident happens at the mall, such as a fight, accident, or dispute between employees/management/customers, every photograph taken around that time is potential evidence that can be used against the mall.

As I stated, these aren't all necessarily GOOD reasons, but if you're a mall and you're trying to preempt several problems, restricting photography is a good way to start.

FirstNationalBastard: Whenever banning of public photography is mentioned, the usual excuses are pedos and terrorism. Granted, those are just the official excuses

Again, its not public. its private property.

Its an anti crime effort. There were armed robberies at several retailers, wherein later it was determined that the robbers had cased the interior of the store by taking pictures to determine store layout, exits, etc. There was one where multiple floor staff members were tied up and left in a back room, and a really bad one in Texas where a girl got raped. (I'm not googling them for you,)

Retail is shiate work, (which, thankfully, I don't have to do anymore) Banning photography is a small but useful tactic to improve worker safety.

But this was just a grandma out with her kids!

Crimes are committed by all ages, shapes and colors. The alternative to a blanket policy would be to profile: would you rather have that?

publikenemy: Well we all know it's been proven; giving someone a badge is the main ingredient in instant asshole mix

you deserve a fark badge for that comment...

I've been asked by security to not take photos a few times. Generally it depends on your camera. If you have a big d-SLR and tripod then they will be on you in a second; a camera phone, they will never say anything even if you are right next to them.

I could list a few reasons why I think this is the case, but for whatever reason it seems to be the case. If you want to take pictures inside a store, use a camera phone.

I was even approached by security once in a supermarket because there were a few of us with nice cameras in a group, none taking pictures, or even holding our cameras, were just walking around with them on our necks or in camera bags. However, security approached us after seeing us on camera (not in person) and asked us if we intended to take pictures inside the store, and followed us around until we left.

FirstNationalBastard: Well, it's only logical.

These "no pictures" rules are supposedly made to thwart pedophiles, and a relative of a child is much more likely to molest them than some random stranger.

Yeah, except this never happened.

Next manufactured outrage please.

I'm surprised the mall didn't play the "Turrism." card.

FirstNationalBastard: Well, it's only logical.

These "no pictures" rules are supposedly made to thwart pedophiles, and a relative of a child is much more likely to molest them than some random stranger.

Or they could be terrorists planning an attack. Malls and other lightly guarded places are "soft-targets" chosen to create maximum terror with a minimum of risk. Having a child in the picture is a ruse to deflect suspicion that they are terrorists.

facebook page is full of wHinE

Hmm, can't imagine why shopping malls are closing down right and left...

Ever been to a 'dead' mall? Is that what they want?

/Amazon.com doesn't normally get me arrested
//not for lack of trying

namatad: WhyteRaven74: Speaker2Animals: Someone is in dire need of a cock punch. Several someones, in fact. Yeah, it's private property and you can make your own rules. Doesn't mean you're not an asshole for making stupid rules.

THIS

you know what would be a great solution to this?
AARP organizing a permanent boycott of this mall.

these people are out of control.

/really? are these rules REALLY to stop pedophiles ??

the AARP?

This man approves!

Inhale/exhale: FirstNationalBastard: Whenever banning of public photography is mentioned, the usual excuses are pedos and terrorism. Granted, those are just the official excuses

Again, its not public. its private property.

Its an anti crime effort. There were armed robberies at several retailers, wherein later it was determined that the robbers had cased the interior of the store by taking pictures to determine store layout, exits, etc. There was one where multiple floor staff members were tied up and left in a back room, and a really bad one in Texas where a girl got raped. (I'm not googling them for you,)

Retail is shiate work, (which, thankfully, I don't have to do anymore) Banning photography is a small but useful tactic to improve worker safety.

But this was just a grandma out with her kids!

Crimes are committed by all ages, shapes and colors. The alternative to a blanket policy would be to profile: would you rather have that?

What a load of shiat. If thieves are that determined to case a joint they will either do it the old fashioned way and take a look around personally and make a mental note of anything important or they'll just send someone in with a hidden camera.

Yeah, I'm really sure that girl wouldn't have been raped if they had only banned everyone from taking pictures. I'm sure the perpetrator(s) had an intricate, detailed plan laid out in his basement beforehand that he was only able to construct because of the photos he went and took the day before.

Yeah, retail is a shiatty job (not as bad as restaurant work though) but banning people from taking photos does absolutely NOTHING to make it less shiatty.

Bad_Seed: FirstNationalBastard: Well, it's only logical.

These "no pictures" rules are supposedly made to thwart pedophiles, and a relative of a child is much more likely to molest them than some random stranger.

Or they could be terrorists planning an attack. Malls and other lightly guarded places are "soft-targets" chosen to create maximum terror with a minimum of risk. Having a child in the picture is a ruse to deflect suspicion that they are terrorists.

Oh good lord.

Call out the Mall Ninja! (new window)

Lars The Canadian Viking: I've been asked by security to not take photos a few times. Generally it depends on your camera. If you have a big d-SLR and tripod then they will be on you in a second; a camera phone, they will never say anything even if you are right next to them.

I could list a few reasons why I think this is the case, but for whatever reason it seems to be the case. If you want to take pictures inside a store, use a camera phone.

I was even approached by security once in a supermarket because there were a few of us with nice cameras in a group, none taking pictures, or even holding our cameras, were just walking around with them on our necks or in camera bags. However, security approached us after seeing us on camera (not in person) and asked us if we intended to take pictures inside the store, and followed us around until we left.

There are maps posted everywhere and criminals don't obey laws anyway. It sucks that it happened, but if you want to case a joint, rules aren't going to stop you.

ArkAngel: Private property. They can do it if they want. They cannot, however, physically remove you as the security guard said unless they are a threat to others. They must wait for the real cops to do it.

That being said, this is a douchy thing to do.

This is why even if I am old and grey I will always look up the self defense laws in any area I travel to. I am more then willing to leave when asked to by the owners or their reps for any reason. I can still ask 'what if I don't want to leave?' without refusing to go as a walk away.

\has met some veterans that would have refused to leave until cops showed up after the threat
\\and even being old they would have killed some rent-a-cops for touching them
\\\since it was illegal and within self defense in most states

I do believe that I am going to the SSO after Christmas and ask him to take a digital picture of the SCIF gate. One that shows the two signs saying no pictures are authorized, but deadly force is. I will then ensure that the next time I'm in the states I have that on my phone or ipad when I go to the local mall. I will then proceed to take numerous pictures just for spite and wait for some minimum-wage lackey to attempt to stop me. Hilarity will ensue when I show them that picture and ask where their warning signs are, and where are their "sensitive areas."

Mall security can blow me!

Weaver95: Oberloh and Cassella said they were unaware of the University Park's policy against picture taking and requested.

um...if that policy got to court, the mall would lose.

If the policy wasn't posted, sure. But even then, they wouldn't lose on the grounds that they're not allowed to ban photography, they'd lose on the grounds that making up non-obvious rules and not telling people about them is basically harassment.

We can't bust heads like we used to, but we have our ways. One trick is to tell 'em stories that don't go anywhere - like the time I caught the ferry over to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe, so, I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. "Give me five bees for a quarter," you'd say. I used to have a box of mint-condition 1918 liberty-head silver dollars. You see, back in those days, rich men would ride around in Zeppelins, dropping coins on people, and one day I seen J.D. Rockefeller flying by. So I run of the house with a big washtub and... hey! Where are you going? Anyway, about my washtub. I'd just used it that morning to wash my turkey, which in those days was known as a walking-bird. We'd always have walking-bird on Thanksgiving, with all the trimmings: cranberries, injun eyes, yams stuffed with gunpowder. Then we'd all watch football, which in those days was called baseball...

No pictures in the mall, deal with it.

gozar_the_destroyer: criminals don't obey laws anyway. It sucks that it happened, but if you want to case a joint, rules aren't going to stop you

This is the equivalent of "She was asking for it by wearing that dress."

Lost_in_Korea: I do believe that I am going to the SSO after Christmas and ask him to take a digital picture of the SCIF gate. One that shows the two signs saying no pictures are authorized, but deadly force is.

I think I've got pics of my old SCIF in Huntsville after it was declared secular, just before we moved. We never cared about the outside, but pics of the inside were not permitted. I had a sign outside that said "If you bring in a cell phone or iPod, it's mine, saith the Tom".

Sadly, I had a nice collection of cell phones inside in a bucket. You could even have it back, but only if I put it through the hydraulic press a few times first.

/"will it smash?"

"I'd understand if I was taking pictures of the architecture or the products in the stores and she became a little hostile and aggressive," said Grandfather Don Oberloh."

Really ? You'd understand that ? Why, gramps, why would you understand that ?

Just to settle why there was a no pic policy in the mall for everyone I can tell you since I did retail: price comparison proof. Since some of the mall tenets want to ensure that they don't have it happen to them (and it has happened to them and they can prove it with the photos) and their lease states that the mall will handle all trespasses had to enact a policy to stop it (since a retarded manager with no idea how much he, the mall and security can be sued for in federal court, let alone in state court was in charge).

\shop online since they love your money more than trying to max out any profit margins
\\at least there only your wallet and what you purchased can be stolen

Inhale/exhale: gozar_the_destroyer: criminals don't obey laws anyway. It sucks that it happened, but if you want to case a joint, rules aren't going to stop you

This is the equivalent of "She was asking for it by wearing that dress."

Inhale/exhale: gozar_the_destroyer: criminals don't obey laws anyway. It sucks that it happened, but if you want to case a joint, rules aren't going to stop you

This is the equivalent of "She was asking for it by wearing that dress."

1/10 if it was a troll, so I will clarify my thoughts for you.

If you are going to rob a place, you should case it. You are going to rob it and possibly shot and kill people or cops, so what the hell do you care about 'Mall Rules'?

If you are a rapist, you will rape. They will rape at the first opportunity since
they are bastards that can barely get laid and have to rape to get their penis damp. You think the threat of a positive DNA test will stop them? If you do, then my Aunt will tell you 'fark no, but it put the bastard that raped me in jail'.

Neondistraction: Inhale/exhale: gozar_the_destroyer: criminals don't obey laws anyway. It sucks that it happened, but if you want to case a joint, rules aren't going to stop you

This is the equivalent of "She was asking for it by wearing that dress."

[30.media.tumblr.com image 363x310]

I would have posted that pic, but I feel that I use it too much. Maybe I should have responded to them with this :


I can fell the stupid flowing through you!

...rather than the well thought out slap to the groin? Well, I already posted it so it is too late.

\pic is hot like a Hutt slave girl

gozar_the_destroyer: If you are a rapist, you will rape. They will rape at the first opportunity sincethey are bastards that can barely get laid and have to rape to get their penis damp. You think the threat of a positive DNA test will stop them? If you do, then my Aunt will tell you 'fark no, but it put the bastard that raped me in jail'


Rapists are impossible to stop with laws. Therefore we should not have any rape laws?

namatad: WhyteRaven74: Speaker2Animals: Someone is in dire need of a cock punch. Several someones, in fact. Yeah, it's private property and you can make your own rules. Doesn't mean you're not an asshole for making stupid rules.

THIS

you know what would be a great solution to this?
AARP organizing a permanent boycott of this mall.

these people are out of control.

/really? are these rules REALLY to stop pedophiles ??

Cuz only pedophiles take pics of little kids.

\It's true because I read it online.